Does Singapore have the right idea here?
Poll
 | 9 votes (52.94%) | ||
| | 6 votes (35.29%) | ||
| | 2 votes (11.76%) |
17 members have voted
Personally I would support such a measure or all but say the first 26 weeks of unelployment (IOW, you take extended benefits then you use your time to find work) and social security. Take welfare, WIC, public housing, and yes even disability then you should not be at the slots or at the tables.
Some states are taking this even further by adding strip-clubs and even nail salons into the mix. But this being a gambling forum and the fact that most places have self-exclusion in place it seems farily easy to hand an application for self-exclusion with all the other forms the person is filling out.
Why not here?
But then, I say that about everybody.
they are disabling electronic benefit cards in their ATMs,
which i agree with.
the "problem" of people using their benefits for casino gambling,
liquor, lotteries, tattoos, strippers, nails, and drugs is not really very widespread.
most people need the money they receive for shelter and food.
ps...are you hoping for an "atlas shrugged" moment? okay...who is john galt?
On the other hand, I've seen people on benefits sporting 4S apples and other expensive gadgets. WTF? Shouldn't these be disallowed as well... but there's so many things you would have to ban. In a money based society, it just doesn't work.
I think a clear line should be drawn between entitlements and life support. If I bust my ass at work, pay taxes, get laid off because they can't afford me anymore and major pay slashing isn't practiced, then I'm entitled to what comes back my way out of taxes I paid in the first place.
If someone never even looked for a job and we think it's unethical to haul their ass to help the community in exchange for help or let them feed off the 15% of good food that is thrown away, they have no business spending it on luxuries. But we can't control it, can we? Food stamps just get sold for partial value.
P.S. Re Singapore - if Obamination wins again, I'm considering applying. It's not half as bad as it sounds.
Quote: WongBothe states that are taking the measures are not requiring self-exclusion,
they are disabling electronic benefit cards in their ATMs,
which i agree with.
the "problem" of people using their benefits for casino gambling,
liquor, lotteries, tattoos, strippers, nails, and drugs is not really very widespread.
most people need the money they receive for shelter and food.
ps...are you hoping for an "atlas shrugged" moment? okay...who is john galt?
Yes sir, exactly what went down here in wa. state cant use benny cards in casino, strip club and other atm locations. Ummm the funny part is you can always run across the street to the atm and maybe only miss one shoe.
Quote: P90
P.S. Re Singapore - if Obamination wins again, I'm considering applying. It's not half as bad as it sounds.
Actually it always looked like a nice, kept place. Sort of Hong Kong without all the smog. I think they even allow import of chewing gum now, though I still wouldn't care about that one.
Quote: rainmanYes sir, exactly what went down here in wa. state cant use benny cards in casino, strip club and other atm locations. Ummm the funny part is you can always run across the street to the atm and maybe only miss one shoe.
That is why I would be for self-exclusion. If you are on assistance you should not be allowed to enter the building, heck you should not even be in the parking lot. It is hard to police the strip clubs, but at least in PA the gaming board and state police are inside 27/7/365.2525. Get caught and there would be issues. Plus it sends the message, "hey, you want to be a ward of the state that is allowed. But casinos are for people who work."
prefer to gamble on the street anyway.
craps, cee-lo, pool, chess, 3 card monte...
Quote: AZDuffman
Personally I would support such a measure or all but say the first 26 weeks of unelployment (IOW, you take extended benefits then you use your time to find work) and social security. Take welfare, WIC, public housing, and yes even disability then you should not be at the slots or at the tables.
Some states are taking this even further by adding strip-clubs and even nail salons into the mix. But this being a gambling forum and the fact that most places have self-exclusion in place it seems farily easy to hand an application for self-exclusion with all the other forms the person is filling out.
Why not here?
Why stop at casinos or nail salons? Sounds arbitrary. What about movie theaters? Amusement parks? Libraries?
I thought, you were against excessive government control. Oh well ... guess, I was wrong.
Quote: weaselmanWhy stop at casinos or nail salons? Sounds arbitrary. What about movie theaters? Amusement parks? Libraries?
I thought, you were against excessive government control. Oh well ... guess, I was wrong.
Cashless Society! Then the government will be able to restrict anything.
It will make sex with prostitutes difficult. You will have to pay with cigarettes, a ham, or gasoline.
Quote: pacomartin
It will make sex with prostitutes difficult. You will have to pay with cigarettes, a ham, or gasoline.
In federal prisons they use foil tuna packs as
money. They cost a dollar in the prison store
and are small and imperishible. A haircut costs
3 packs, for instance.
Quote: pacomartinIt will make sex with prostitutes difficult. You will have to pay with cigarettes, a ham, or gasoline.
Or pesos. If physical USD and CAD are eliminated, US is going to run on pesos.
Quote: weaselmanWhy stop at casinos or nail salons? Sounds arbitrary. What about movie theaters? Amusement parks? Libraries?
I thought, you were against excessive government control. Oh well ... guess, I was wrong.
I am against excessive government, and trying to keep more people off assistance because of the hassle it is would help that. You see, there is a difference between regulating commerce and telling a ward of the state what behavior they may not engage in if they want to be on the dole.
Not sure what libraries have to do with it; but yes, they should not be hanging out at the movie theatre or the amusement park.
Nice try on trying to make my limited-government position look hypocritical based on this position. Better luck next time.
Quote: P90Or pesos. If physical USD and CAD are eliminated, US is going to run on pesos.
Well I don't expect anybody to eliminate their currency any time soon. Canada is just trying to greatly reduce the use of currency, so they won't have to replace it that often. The attempt is to make it easy and cheap to make small purchases without the use of notes and coins.
But the USA ran on Spanish dollars when the nation was founded as Mexico had the only trustworthy currency in the Western Hemisphere.
Quote: AZDuffmanI am against excessive government, and trying to keep more people off assistance because of the hassle it is would help that. You see, there is a difference between regulating commerce and telling a ward of the state what behavior they may not engage in if they want to be on the dole.
Not sure what libraries have to do with it; but yes, they should not be hanging out at the movie theatre or the amusement park.
Nice try on trying to make my limited-government position look hypocritical based on this position. Better luck next time.
That ward of the state is definitely engaging in commerce, so I guess I'm missing your point. Isn't telling a ward of the state how they can spend their money a sub-set of the larger activity of regulating commerce?
Quote: rdw4potusThat ward of the state is definitely engaging in commerce, so I guess I'm missing your point. Isn't telling a ward of the state how they can spend their money a sub-set of the larger activity of regulating commerce?
The ward of the state has chosen not to make their own commerce and insted chooses to live off the rest of ours. So in return for money for not working the ward of the state should have to engage in behavior that will get them out of said situation.
Put another way, if you give your child an allowence you get to tell them where they may or may not spend it. The ward of the state is an adult-child on an effective allowence, so in respect for the rest of us who are having part of our earnings taken away the ward of the state should be told certain behavior and spending patterns with that allowence will not be tolerated.
Or more simply, if you want to enter a casino do not go on welfare or other assistance. When you have your own job you get to decide for yourself.
Quote: pacomartinWell I don't expect anybody to eliminate their currency any time soon. Canada is just trying to greatly reduce the use of currency, so they won't have to replace it that often. The attempt is to make it easy and cheap to make small purchases without the use of notes and coins.
A highly diverse country with a complex economy, like US, can't simply go ahead and eliminate currency. But we're digressing. I'll better make a separate thread.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe ward of the state has chosen not to make their own commerce and insted chooses to live off the rest of ours. So in return for money for not working the ward of the state should have to engage in behavior that will get them out of said situation.
Put another way, if you give your child an allowence you get to tell them where they may or may not spend it. The ward of the state is an adult-child on an effective allowence, so in respect for the rest of us who are having part of our earnings taken away the ward of the state should be told certain behavior and spending patterns with that allowence will not be tolerated.
Or more simply, if you want to enter a casino do not go on welfare or other assistance. When you have your own job you get to decide for yourself.
I don't disagree with either your description or your underlying idea. But I don't think that any of your explanations help bolster your case that this isn't increased governmental involvement in the lives of private citizens.
Quote: rdw4potusI don't disagree with either your description or your underlying idea. But I don't think that any of your explanations help bolster your case that this isn't increased governmental involvement in the lives of private citizens.
My point is when you decide to live on assistance you start to become more of a ward of the state and less of a private citizen. Sadly many people are happy for such an arrangment.
personally, i prefer this system to one where they go out and kill someone for this food, but i guess that's just liberal dogma.
Quote: WongBobelieve it or not, some people do not choose to live off of others but do avail themselves of a program that will pay for food.
personally, i prefer this system to one where they go out and kill someone for this food, but i guess that's just liberal dogma.
Nobody said get rid of the safety net, what I have said is if you need government (my!) money for food then you do not get to go and play in a casino.
Quote: WongBopractically unenforceable...
Not if you have a self-exclusion list in place. Just make adding yourself to the list part of the application process. Then the same penalties that apply to anyone else can allpy to you, plus there could be a policy where if you are found inside a casino you are banned from any further welfare benefits for life.
Quote: WongBo, i prefer this system to one where they go out and kill someone for this food, but i guess that's just liberal dogma.
Yeah, those are the only two options, kill for food, or go on the dole.
Dang the luck..
Quote: EvenBobYeah, those are the only two options, kill for food, or go on the dole.
Well, could be worse. At least they don't have to enlist at terrorist training camps for food.
be the first option, IMO.
Quote: AZDuffmanNobody said get rid of the safety net, what I have said is if you need government (my!) money for food then you do not get to go and play in a casino.
Hmm, it's not -your- money. It's the government's money, and you could view it as the collective money of all the state. As such, you elect people to decide how to spend that money. Once you've paid your taxes, it's no more 'your' money than the money you spend at Chevron to fill up your car with gas, even if you own Chevron shares.
On the surface though, your proposal has some good things... force people on limited funds to make 'good' decisions. However, how do you decide which decisions are 'good' and which are 'bad'? Is the $10 meal at MacD's bad, when for $5 they could have cooked their own? Is the $9.99 on smokes bad? Or the $12 on a movie rental? Or $10 on gas to go visit a friend, who might have a job for them, or might not? And so on... by second guessing good and bad behaviours for people to spend their money ('ward of state' or otherwise) you are interrupting the free flow of commerce. And forcing people not to spend their money from one source in one place is similar (not the same) as forcing all people to spend their money on one particular good or service.
And while some people are entirely reliant on government money, others have some income from external sources. Can they only spend this money freely? Or are they barred until ALL their income is from non-governmental sources?
You end up in a maze of regulation, with a solution that doesn't prevent the problem you are trying to solve (reduction of people spending income support on items you decide are 'bad'). Sure, you want people to stop being dependent on the government, or if they are, to not view it as long term option. Other methods would be reduction in state subsidies, time limitation, government vouchers rather than a fungible good. I think those would be a far better means to hit your aims rather than a set of rules on what is allowable expenditure by the poor.
Deciding that the first $x of a persons income must be spent on goods and service of a certain type is a rather dangerous 'slippery slope'. And it doesn't help your aim of smaller government... you should, I think, advocate a blunter tool for that rather than control of people's spending in certain areas.
yeah that seems like a great solution, i wonder why it hasn't been implemented.
a self exclusion list only works when you are identified in some way. there are thousands of casinos in multiple states.
how much free time do you suppose the average surveillance crew has to police millions of people for their mere presence?
Quote: AZDuffmanNot if you have a self-exclusion list in place. Just make adding yourself to the list part of the application process. Then the same penalties that apply to anyone else can allpy to you, plus there could be a policy where if you are found inside a casino you are banned from any further welfare benefits for life.
It's INCREDIBLY rare when I chime in on political discussions or anything having to do with this nature... but...
To put people on the self-exclusion list as it is NOW would be a bad move. Most states have a lifetime ban, meaning once you're on the list, you CAN NOT get off it. Assuming these people get "off the dole," the current system would never allow them to gamble again.
While the infrastructure is currently there, it would take an entirely different structured system and one that would be very difficult to enforce nationwide. Besides, there are still Indian casinos that wouldn't be subject to such laws...
Quote: WongBobanned for life? as in, oh sorry, you're hungry? well i guess you are on your own....
Correct. But more as in, "well, you failed our program so try the local foodbank, maybe your church, or some other place. Or maybe just get a job for crying out loud.
But you used our assistance meant for food to gamble, so you must have your own money for food."
Quote:a self exclusion list only works when you are identified in some way. there are thousands of casinos in multiple states.
how much free time do you suppose the average surveillance crew has to police millions of people for their mere presence?
The same argument made for virtually any welfare reform, "well it won't work 100% of the time so why try it?" Point is it shows people how serious they need to be about getting their life in order. While Obama just gutted the 1996 Welfare Reform Act that got lots of people off the dole, most people realize the goal of a program like welfare should be to get people OFF of it.
Quote: AZDuffmanCorrect. But more as in, "well, you failed our program so try the local foodbank, maybe your church, or some other place. Or maybe just get a job for crying out loud.
You continue to incorrectly assume that all people on public assistance are jobless...
Quote: TiltpoulTo put people on the self-exclusion list as it is NOW would be a bad move. Most states have a lifetime ban, meaning once you're on the list, you CAN NOT get off it. Assuming these people get "off the dole," the current system would never allow them to gamble again.
Or get a room in a LV casino hotel.
Or watch a show there.
Or, should they someday start playing tournament poker (which is a lot more sport than gambling) professionally and turn out to be the next X Moneymaker, make use of that WSOP ticket they just earned.
Quote: rdw4potusYou continue to incorrectly assume that all people on public assistance are jobless...
If they have a job or not is not germane to the situation. If you want assistance it is supposed to mean you have no other way to support yourself. So if you have enough money to play at a casino you don't need public assistance.
Quote: AZDuffmanIf they have a job or not is not germane to the situation.
I accept this point. But, I'm having a hard time reconciling it with your"...just get a job" comment. Little help?
Quote: rdw4potusI accept this point. But, I'm having a hard time reconciling it with your"...just get a job" comment. Little help?
Here is a good start.
Quote: AZDuffmanI am against excessive government, and trying to keep more people off assistance because of the hassle it is would help that.
So would labor camps. If something helps a good cause, it does not necessarily mean it is a good idea.
Quote:You see, there is a difference between regulating commerce and telling a ward of the state what behavior they may not engage in if they want to be on the dole.
No, there isn't.
The government has no business telling private entities what to do, whether the entity is an international corporation or just an average Joe is immaterial.
Quote:Not sure what libraries have to do with it;
Well, suppose, someone, who likes books applies for assistance, and is told that he'll never see insides of a library again. It would "help to keep more people off assistance", wouldn't it?
Quote:but yes, they should not be hanging out at the movie theatre or the amusement park.
Yeah ... How about a restaurant? A gas station? A barber shop?. Why let them wonder the streets at all?
Quote:Nice try on trying to make my limited-government position look hypocritical based on this position.
"Trying"? Really? You must be in really deep denial if you don't see it.
Quote: rdw4potusI don't disagree with either your description or your underlying idea. But I don't think that any of your explanations help bolster your case that this isn't increased governmental involvement in the lives of private citizens.
The Government is already involved in their lives by giving them the benefits in the first place. It can be said that the Government, in such cases, is involved to no greater or lesser extent (i.e. controlling the money that they, themselves, give them) but that they are simply attempting to manage the investment that they are statutorily bound to make.
If you want to decrease Governmental involvement, get rid of the benefits altogether. However, I do not personally support getting rid of the benefits altogether. I do support the notion that those benefits should not be used for any kind of frivolous or luxurious spending.
I might be inclined to disagree about movie theaters and amusement parks. If the people in question have children, I think it would be kind of unfair for the kids to not get to experience the infrequent joy of an amusement park or seeing a movie.
If they are parents, however, who are surviving on Government Assistance, going to the casino may be considered selfish but is DEFINITELY illegal unless they report the income on winnings. You are required to report ANY change in income and you must state the source. If you win so much as $0.01, then that is a change in income. If you fail to report a change in income, then you are supposed to lose your benefits. Technically, these people should already be losing their benefits anyway for not reporting the change in income, unless they literally always lose.
Quote: WongBobanned for life? as in, oh sorry, you're hungry? well i guess you are on your own....
yeah that seems like a great solution, i wonder why it hasn't been implemented.
a self exclusion list only works when you are identified in some way. there are thousands of casinos in multiple states.
how much free time do you suppose the average surveillance crew has to police millions of people for their mere presence?
You could have a linked up computer database and mandatory ID scan.
doubtful.
Quote: AZDuffman
Cute video. Those people should get jobs. But you're still trying pretty hard to avoid discussing the incredibly large group of people who do work but are still on public assistance.
Quote: Mission146The Government is already involved in their lives by giving them the benefits in the first place. It can be said that the Government, in such cases, is involved to no greater or lesser extent (i.e. controlling the money that they, themselves, give them) but that they are simply attempting to manage the investment that they are statutorily bound to make.
If you want to decrease Governmental involvement, get rid of the benefits altogether. However, I do not personally support getting rid of the benefits altogether. I do support the notion that those benefits should not be used for any kind of frivolous or luxurious spending.
Problem is, then you have to define what that spending IS, and when is it frivolous and a luxury. It would appear to me, if this is a common problem AND you wish to stop it, the reduction in benefits is the answer, not the additional overhead of defining where people may spend their income (regardless of source). If the Obamacare force of spending on health insurance is 'wrong', a force stopping people spending on item X (that other people can spend their income on) also seems 'wrong'.
E.g. I'm not sure governmental control of the spending of a person on welfare is parsimonious with the dislike of governmental control of spending on of a person not on welfare. It feels all a little large scale, governmental control, big-statist approach, and I'm not sure that's what AZ really wants.
Quote: thecesspitProblem is, then you have to define what that spending IS, and when is it frivolous and a luxury. It would appear to me, if this is a common problem AND you wish to stop it, the reduction in benefits is the answer, not the additional overhead of defining where people may spend their income (regardless of source). If the Obamacare force of spending on health insurance is 'wrong', a force stopping people spending on item X (that other people can spend their income on) also seems 'wrong'.
E.g. I'm not sure governmental control of the spending of a person on welfare is parsimonious with the dislike of governmental control of spending on of a person not on welfare. It feels all a little large scale, governmental control, big-statist approach, and I'm not sure that's what AZ really wants.
I do not know that it is a common problem, but I think that it is an easily correctable problem. I also believe that casinos would be able to do well improving their public image by ID scanning everyone for other reasons, as well. You could have an individual who is on the run for one reason or another and that would nab him, easily. I KNOW the casinos wouldn't like this, but you could also use it to bar gambling addicts, meaning people who are basically in counselling.
Back to the benefits. I do not see the casinos as being a common problem, but I do know that many such people go to bars and drop insane amounts of money that I (as someone who is not on public assistance) would never consider spending on drinking in one night! I think that they should be barred (no pun intended, really, it wasn't) from doing that.
I don't think reducing the actual benefits is going to help, necessarily, because for people who are using the benefits the right way you would tend to be giving them a worse standard of living...which already isn't that good...in the process. I don't think that it would be equitable for x amount of alcoholics who would rather spend their food stamp money at the bar than actually feeding their kids to detrimentally affect the lives of other kids whose parent(s) spend the money more-or-less appropriately to the extent that you reduce them to a bread-and-water type sustenance.
The majority of them do need the money. However, the sad truth of the matter is that there are some parent(s) (who are nothing more than glorified sperm/egg donors) to the extent that they would rather drop $100 at the bar than have enough food for the kids for the month.
They also think the electronic thing will help curb abuse. That's cute. I've seen the cash transactions. You have Food Stamp recipient A who goes shopping with person B and buys what person B wants to buy. Person A will then use Person A's food stamp card to complete the transaction.
I actually saw this happen: Food Stamp recipient A paid for the transaction, I was next in line. I only had a handful of items, paid for said handful. I go outside to the parking lot and the two of them are standing by this van, one of them yells, "Hey," at me. I decide to be polite and address them, for whatever reason. The person who yelled to me asks, "What is half of $127?" I answer the question, and she turns to her friend and says, "See, I told you that you owe me $63.50 not $53.50."
HALF!!! She did the shopping for her and took half in cash!!! What the Hell!? Where can I become friends with a person that will take only ha-.....I mean, how immoral is that!!??
Quote: Mission146
HALF!!! She did the shopping for her and took half in cash!!! What the Hell!? Where can I become friends with a person that will take only ha-.....I mean, how immoral is that!!??
A lot of my cab drivers took food stamps. If a fare
was $10, they'd take $15 in stamps. That was way
before they issued cards. It was illegal but stopping
it was like stopping breathing. I even took some when
I drove. Hey, its better than getting stiffed.
Quote: EvenBobQuote: Mission146
HALF!!! She did the shopping for her and took half in cash!!! What the Hell!? Where can I become friends with a person that will take only ha-.....I mean, how immoral is that!!??
A lot of my cab drivers took food stamps. If a fare
was $10, they'd take $15 in stamps. That was way
before they issued cards. It was illegal but stopping
it was like stopping breathing. I even took some when
I drove. Hey, its better than getting stiffed.
It does beat getting stiffed, I'll admit that much. Was the tip a few home-rolled cigarettes with Bugler?
In any event, what I posted would be like $20 Stamps on a $10 fare. I think that's just complete insanity!
I guess the one thing I have never understood is why many cab companies did not (and some, apparently, still do not) take any kind of a deposit. I would be loaded if I had $5.00 for every time the dispatcher calls me here at the hotel and yells at me because the cab, "Drove all the way out there and the guy was nowhere to be found."
I have told that guy any number of times NOT to send people out unless I call him personally. The reason why is because I told the dispatcher that I will hold onto $25 of the person's cash which will go to the driver if the person is nowhere to be found, either that, or I will get a Credit Card number for them to charge $25.00 to the card. It has always worked when I have done it this way and people are there waiting for their cabs, yet he still chooses to send his drivers when I am not the one to call AND threatens to discontinue their service here.
I told him to discontinue his service, I've never made any money off of it. I'm willing to take the deposit because I feel bad for the driver losing fares. I don't care one way or the other whether or not they come here.
Quote: EvenBob
A lot of my cab drivers took food stamps. If a fare
was $10, they'd take $15 in stamps. That was way
before they issued cards. It was illegal but stopping
it was like stopping breathing. I even took some when
I drove. Hey, its better than getting stiffed.
Way, way back in HS when I was a cashier at a grocery store several people on food stamps hated our location because we were the only place that refused to take the stamps if they were removed from the book. It was actually a reg that the book had to be present and you had to match the serial number of the book to the stamps. $1s were exempt from this as you gave gthe $1s as change, and coins for the "breakage" in a purchase. We also carded for food stamp ID, the only place around that did so.
Quote: Mission146I also believe that casinos would be able to do well improving their public image by ID scanning everyone for other reasons, as well. You could have an individual who is on the run for one reason or another and that would nab him, easily.
But why just casinos? Imagine that you have to carry your id everywhere you go, and scan it to enter, say, a restaurant or a grocery store. You scan it first, your SSN is sent to a government computer, it does a quick calculation, comparing the restaurant's price range with your last tax return, and returns a decision whether or not you are allowed to enter.
It would help solve so many issue. Besides the obvious reduction of abuse of public assistance funds, and apprehending those felons running from justice or husbands trying to skip on their wives that you mentioned before, it would also greatly improve the crime solving rate by the police, by allowing them pretty much instantly locate any witness to any crime. Noone will ever go missing again!
Now that I think about it, it sounds like Obamacare is going to allow this procedure to be tremendously simplified. You don't even need to carry your ID everywhere. Just scan your health insurance card before entering a gym, and get an instant decision if this particular one is allowed.
And no, of course, it should not be only limited to people who receive assistance, it's just crazy talk. First, how can that bouncer at the library even tell if you are using public funds or not? Nope. Everyone gets to scan their insurance card to determine the level of non-essential services he is allowed to receive. And second, surely we understand, that many people, who do not receive monetary assistance are nevertheless public charge, because they are not paying any taxes.
Quote: weaselman
No, there isn't.
The government has no business telling private entities what to do, whether the entity is an international corporation or just an average Joe is immaterial.
I agree on this, which is why I am agasinst Obamacare and prefer the minimum wage be turned over to the state to regulate. But this is a private entity that willingly turns to the government for a transaction, said transaction like any gives one side the right to demand an activity from the other in exhange for completing it. Like any transaction if the other side does not like the terms they are free to walk away.
Quote:Well, suppose, someone, who likes books applies for assistance, and is told that he'll never see insides of a library again. It would "help to keep more people off assistance", wouldn't it?
Well, a library has no cost whereas a casino, bar, or strip-club does. Libraries have resources for job hunting. So your saying why not deny them libraries is a little confusing to me.
Quote:Yeah ... How about a restaurant? A gas station? A barber shop?. Why let them wonder the streets at all?
Well, I would be in favor of them having to show up for some community service one day a week. And having it start at 8:00 AM. Most cities have plenty of trash to be picked up and things to be cleaned.
Quote: AZDuffmanI agree on this,
I know you do. And at the same time you want the government to be involved into a decision on where a person can and cannot go.
And you still don't see the hypocrisy? Really?
Quote:But this is a private entity that willingly turns to the government for a transaction,
said transaction like any gives one side the right to demand an activity from the other in exhange for completing it. Like any transaction if the other side does not like the terms they are free to walk away.
Sure. Just like you are free to walk away from Obamacare ...
Quote:Well, a library has no cost
Huh? Surely, you believe that Santa brings all those books to it, and has some of his elves work there for free, right?
Quote: weaselmanI know you do. And at the same time you want the government to be involved into a decision on where a person can and cannot go.
And you still don't see the hypocrisy? Really?
No, I do not see the connection where I do not want the government controlling my actions when I am asking nothing direct from it and with setting requirements to be on assistance. In the first case we have no direct transactions or relationship other than the citizen/government relationship whereas in the second a person is asking for special, direct help. Thus in the second the person is enterint into another "contract" beyond the "contract" of the US Constitution and a citizen. So upon entering into said contract there should be some requirement on the receiver of payments and food stamps regarding their behavior and guiding it to get them off the dole.
Quote:Sure. Just like you are free to walk away from Obamacare ...
I am NOT free to walk away from Obamacare. If I do not participate I am forced to pay a tax, and if you do not pay your taxes you eventually will have the government just take the money or/and throw you in jail. OTOH, the government compels nobody to take welfare.
Quote:Huh? Surely, you believe that Santa brings all those books to it, and has some of his elves work there for free, right?
I was unaware that a person reading my post would not be able to understand the context of "cost" so I will re-write the sentence more clearly. "A library has no cost *to the patron* while a casino or strip club do.
If you talk to most trust fund managers who look after funds that are held in trust until the recipient has reached some arbitrary age when they will have become more 'responsible', it seldom works. The fund managers will tell you that without control of the money they will not learn to spend in a controlled manner.
